Deadline says that Scott and 20th Century Fox are seeking the talents of Bale to take on the role of Moses in the movie. Things are in the very early stages right now, but Scott wants this to be his next movie after THE COUNSELOR. The original script is currently getting a rewrite from Steve Zaillian who worked with Scott on AMERICAN GANGSTER.

Bale does have experience with Biblical roles having taking on the part of Jesus in the 1999 TV movie MARY, MOTHER OF JESUS. With Darren Aronofsky's NOAH starting a new trend of Bible based movies, I would expect EXODUS to happen and happen big. The question is whether the movie will be a traditional retelling or something unique. There has been a long history of epic Bible films coming out of Hollywood but nothing in recent years. Whether you truly believe in Judeo-Christian religions or not, EXODUS could be quite a project. I look forward to what Ridley Scott could produce given the right special effects and cast. This could be one cool movie.

Extra Tidbit:

Which would you rather see: Ridley Scott or Steven Spielberg's Bible take?

So NO sequel for Prometheus?

You know, like Robin Hood, after making a film that intentionally leads to / begs for a sequel (with even a serious talk about that), and then NOT doing it, it just gets annoying after the second time.

Anyway, although I'd much rather have the above mentioned ones than yet another retelling of Moses, If Bale is in, then so am I.

You know, like Robin Hood, after making a film that intentionally leads to / begs for a sequel (with even a serious talk about that), and then NOT doing it, it just gets annoying after the second time.

What if

Instead of basing the movie on the Bible they went back to actual recorded Egyptian history. In 1800 BC or so Egypt was invaded by a group the Egyptians called the Hyksos (literally "rulers of foreign lands"in Egyptian). The Hyksos ruled the northern part of Egypt until about 1560 BC when Ahmose became Pharoah of all of Egypt. Ahmose became the leader in Thebes while he was still a child because his father and older brother had both died while fighting the Hyksos. About eight years into his

Instead of basing the movie on the Bible they went back to actual recorded Egyptian history. In 1800 BC or so Egypt was invaded by a group the Egyptians called the Hyksos (literally "rulers of foreign lands"in Egyptian). The Hyksos ruled the northern part of Egypt until about 1560 BC when Ahmose became Pharoah of all of Egypt. Ahmose became the leader in Thebes while he was still a child because his father and older brother had both died while fighting the Hyksos. About eight years into his reign as leader in Thebes he drove the Hyksos out of Egypt. Fighting went on for years after the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt. According to Ahmose's brother Kamose, the Hyksos originally came from Canaan (Syria) so Ahmose sent his army and navy to Canaan (Syria) to destroy their cities.
Now imagine if the Hebrews had been enslaved by the Hyksos, which they would have been if the Hyksos occupied territory from Syria all the way down Egypt. Ahmose then takes back Northern Egypt from the Hyksos and then goes on to destroy their cities in Syria. From the Hebrew point of view, Ahmose had just freed them from slavery.
I think it would be cool if a modern retelling of the Exodus avoided the anachronous details. (Ramses and Nefertiti were Egyptian rulers that appeared centuries later.) They could even keep some of the Biblical account in tact because there was a vocanic eruption on the island of Crete around 1600 BC and modern scientists claim that the ten plagues of Egypt could have been a result of ash from that volcanic eruption falling on Northern Egypt.
It bothers me that we can have an account of the Trojan War that completely dismisses the involvement of the Greek Gods and yet we can't have a movie about Egyptian history told from the point of view of the actual Egyptians. Instead we get a version of Egyptian history written by people a thousand years later in Israel and filled with not only anachronisms but also, frankly, mythological elements about a god taking vengeance against the people of Egypt.

Spielberg is the better storyteller, his narrative structures are seamless whereas ridley tends to bite off more than he can chew. His stories feel a little disjointed sometimes. Having said that, ridley does have the technical proficiency to handle large scale projects, so this should be right in his wheelhouse. He's also quite hit and miss, but Spielberg consistently does good work.

Spielberg is the better storyteller, his narrative structures are seamless whereas ridley tends to bite off more than he can chew. His stories feel a little disjointed sometimes. Having said that, ridley does have the technical proficiency to handle large scale projects, so this should be right in his wheelhouse. He's also quite hit and miss, but Spielberg consistently does good work.

Sounds awesome the only bad part is your going to get all the haters of the Christian religion to come out and make snide little remarks and such. Christian Bale is gold though so if he eventually signs it is a great choice.

Sounds awesome the only bad part is your going to get all the haters of the Christian religion to come out and make snide little remarks and such. Christian Bale is gold though so if he eventually signs it is a great choice.

That's like accusing Wolfgang Petersen of hating Greek mythology because he took out all the mythological aspects from the movie Troy. The fact is that the Bible is a work of fiction that may have partly been based on real events, just like other mythologies that people used to seriously believe in. It bothers some people that the History channel would represent mythological legends as actual history and now we're going to get theatrical movies following suit. This isn't people "hating the

That's like accusing Wolfgang Petersen of hating Greek mythology because he took out all the mythological aspects from the movie Troy. The fact is that the Bible is a work of fiction that may have partly been based on real events, just like other mythologies that people used to seriously believe in. It bothers some people that the History channel would represent mythological legends as actual history and now we're going to get theatrical movies following suit. This isn't people "hating the Christian religion"; this is people not wanting myths presented as actual history.